Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

QrrKZS Of

ZVLMTKA, KJ3KKSMA, WALLJEK AAD SKiAAHW

D Z 3i0k300 Avenue
Oak Harbor Washington S0277
m. C — rf ABMA
M Wl i n Area Code 206
VCN C S* 675^^55 o» 075-2226
Telecopiep
(206) 675-58S3

PROPOSAL. CONCERNING PRESENTATION TO BASE CLOSURE COMMISSION


TO REMOVE NAS WHIDBEY FROM THE CLOSURE LIST

OBJECTIVES.

objective number 1 is to arouse sufficient interest in


appropriate parties to examine our presentation carefully. The
second phase is to provide adequate justification for removal of
NAS Whidbey from the closure list.

PHASE 1.

Phase i is labor intensive and expensive. Its function is


to alert as many potentially interested parties as possible to
the significant concern on North whidbey about the closure of NAS
whidbey. The mailing list should include the following:
»

President Bush
The President1s entire cabinet
* • 4 4

The Joint Chiefs of Staff


Every Admiral in the Pentagon
Every other Admiral in any way interested or involved
in the future of the carrier based Navy.
• »
Q\

Every U.S. Senator - partial list*


Every U.S. Congressman - partial list.
CO
*

Every newspaper in our area as well as every major


newspaper in Washington, D.C.

The major television networks including shows such as


60 Minutes, 20/20 and Paul Harvey news.

We need to establish a community wide letter-writing program


addressed to the Base Closure Commission with copies also mailed
to each individual member of the Commission.

This may result in a substantial mailing list.

The letters should be typed or printed and not more than one
page in length. They should be typed on as many different
typewriters as possible. Volunteers need to be established in
various businesses and professional offices to assist in typing

SHVOV * N3S swvav XDOHH rnozmoz xvi 8S-6I T6/U/T0


*•« c*n *ntlcip«t« no current ut«t.wQ«ints fro* the Nuvy
thet wov;i<J oppo#© t_h* rmcoa*«rvJ«11 on . Huwuv«r, v« »hould bo obi*
to g*t accost to prior statoconia and deconatrato bow they havo
cUanqod tbolr position in the last week or two.

/. mo rood to deconstrata that the Navy Bano structure


r~~r • rtmm (psc) ju-po<i to the wrong conclusions. Before doing
this, wo will need to explors nor* the basis lor their report and
try to -analyze that in greater detail. The report received iron
Al Swift's office soons to be only a summary.

One reason is the "available capacity at NAS Lemoore,


California." Wo need to check into the availability of Lemoore
to acccccodate 6,000 or more personnel and their families. It is
my understanding that they do have the ground available, have the
runways Ln place and may have some hangar space. Specifically,
we need to address what is missing such as a limited water
supply, lack of housing, high expected housing costs, lack of
schools, lack of private services.

The second reason is the single runway configuration at


NAS Whidbey which limits operational flexibility and future
growth. we need to demonstrate that this is pure double talk.
By showing what the Navy has said in prior years to both the
community and to the Congress, we should be able to show that the
existing runway was not expected to inhibit operational
flexibility until just recently. On the issue of future growth,
one of the reasons given for closure was the anticipated
reduction in a-6 aircraft. in the introduction they talk about a
reduction in aircraft carriers, carrier wings and A-6 aircraft in
total. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

The third reason is encroachment at NAS Whidbey


Outlying field. What there has been, is a significant increase
in the frequency and intensity of complaints since 1987. As the
number of A-6 aircraft is reduced, the frequency of the
overflights would be reduced which one could anticipate would
result in the reduction in the number of complaints. Some of the
concerns of the residents near OLF Coupeville are real and are
valid. Solutions are available and may be resolved at a small
fraction of the cost of closing NAS Whidbey. This will be
discussed later.

The next reason given for the low grade in military


value was the previous studies to relocate the EA-6B squadrons to
nas Lemoore and eventually consolidating all West Coast attack
squadrons at NAS Lemoore. This is boot strap reasoning. First
they conduct a study to see if something is possible and then
cite the existence of the study as a basis for making the
decision. There is nothing to indicate the study has any merit,

CIO® Sltvav • N3S <-<-<- swvav H00H9 1680311902 XVd TO:03 16-T3/t0
% it *%•
Ct I* v%i % 1| pru|«rly or whether the appropriate
i*ded la tfcat study.

Mr; ;•; la m w k A" #%~v aiivi au,


If*’ *•>* ~ ,,k^. inability of ruture growth,

*
m ■» r •}

*•
0 •

n
*
hlv2^> ?! *ircr®ft will be reduced
M«ln. t £

a
A
not n.*v« it both ways.

h
Tn* • a' i•ason 9iy*n
B-aritlM was the substantial reduction in
, * * which
pa*rnl a.rrraft
f 1 i i tbs A~* a', ••ion reduction ware previously planned to back
with cor .true rA1<-t i, r.
tion a
..
stand up of
hAi* ahidbey in conjunction
squadrons for tho A-12
•lrcr•rt • u • o k-/ i 4irCr*ft ha* bc#n ^«ncsllsd and no
f *T •*('ui
. “ ' “* on th# box iron. Ssvsral yoani will be
r^qulr®** to ovur. design a replacement to tho a-a. it »aY be tsn
years or ■ore before any replacement aircraft is on lino. Ths
basic premise for phauwig out Ui« a-6 and moving in ths P-3 no
longs; ausia Again, Uuu ia boot strap rsusoninq.

. .* , Flnsncis. Ara.ysts. Wo nood to obtain ths basis for


*none i a 1 analysis that was muds to sss if thoro is any
,llJtV to r.hn ansuaptIon that tho coot of relocation will bo
°Loat ^b 00 alllion and that ths annual savings after
1 asp 1 cusnntst 1 on in about $75 million. I am certain ws can havs an
interesting time reviewing Uiose numbers. However, for now,
lat's assume those numbers tobe correct and examine ths
abnurdity of thin plan.

Assume a cost of relocation of $000 million. At a


minimum, it will bo five to nix years bsfors tho relocation can
be completed. Facilities at Lsmoors need to bo designed. After
bsinq desiqned, Congressional funding and appropriations are
required. After appropriation, construction is required both for
military facilities, housing, utilities, schools, etc. No
savings will be incurred during the construction phase. In all
probability there will be additional costs at Lemoore as well as
at NAS Whidbsy.

However, in any event, the federal government has to


borrow monies to fund extra operations. To not Include the cost
of borrowing these funds is bad accounting and an incomplete
analysis. At an annual interest rate of 8 percent for 2\ years
between the time monies are being spent and the final
implementation of the move, the government will incur interest
costs in excess of $100 million. This will maKe the total cost
of relocation in excess of $600 million. All of that money will
have to be borrowed. Assuming about an 8 percent annual
interest rate, the interest will be $50 million a year.

Therefore, if the expected savings are $7b million a


year and the interest cost is $50 million a year, the net savings

4
tbo*a ietrer*. Each letter should identify the petty by name,
address and telephone neater and should start by stating they are
against the closing of NAS Whidbey.

The need to be cospiled,


letters duplicated and sailed in
groups at least weekly.

Cur goal should be at least 5,000 and maybe as many as


10,000 letters.

we will need the assistance of all civic organizations, the


news media, Chamber of Commerce, and other associations to help
get out the word to have the letters prepared, typed, duplicated
and nailed.

We will need a substantial fund raising effort to cover the


cost of duplication and nailing.

The nailing list needs to be prepared, which is no small


task.

PHASE 2. Justification.

The 3ase Closure Comission (BCC) may change the bases on


the list if the Secretary deviated substantially from the force-
structure plan and final criteria. The BCC must justify any
changes.

Therefore, we must first get their attention and stand out


in the crowd from the_30 some other objectors. Hopefully, ve can
do that by means of the letter-writing campaign. Secondly, ve
have to present justification for a change.

1. Demonstrate that NAS Whidbey is a better military


facility than bemoore. we should emphasize the tradition that
has existed here for over 20 years. We have better weather, ve
have more air space.

We need to obtain from Washington, D.c. everything that


has been said by the Navy to the Department of Defense and by the
Department of Defense to Congress in support of all monies to
support NAS Whidbey during the last five to ten years.

We need to obtain copies of all statements made by


local naval authorities and visiting naval authorities in their
speeches to the community during the last five to ten years. We
need to pick out everything they said about the advantages of NAS
Whidbey and why is should be maintained and why it is a
desirable facility.

SKY0Y X3S skvov MDoaa I6802ft902 XVi 00:OS 16 U to


»• can anticlinal* no current *t«t«n»*nta fro* t.ho Navy
lAet roil4 oyyo— Un r<c iir*irvlatlon. Muwuvar, w* should be able
to g*t iccmi to prior atatoaenUi and deAonetrate how they have
their position In the last week or two.

J. wa reed to demonstrate that the Navy hann .structure


Ccsslttee (noC) j-eped to the wrong conclueione. before doing
tr..a, w* win need to explore sore the basis lor their ruport and
try to analyse that In greater detail. iho report received iron
XI Swift'a office suaae to be only a summary.

One reason la the "available capacity at NAS Lemoora,


California." we need to check Into the availability of Lamoore
to accommodate 6,000 or eore personnel and their families. It is
ey understanding that they do have the ground available, have the
runways In place and cay hove soma hangar npace. Specifically,
we need to addxons what in nissinq such as a limited water
supply, leek of housing, high expected housing coBts, lack of
schools, lack of private services.

The socond roason is the single runway configuration at


NAS wnidbey which limits operational flexibility and future
growth. we need to demonstrate that this is pure double talk.
By showing what the Navy has said in prior years to both the
community and to the Congress, we should be able to show that the
existing runway was not expected to inhibit operational
flexibility until just recently. On the issue of future growth,
one or the reasons given for closure was the anticipated
reduction in A-6 aircraft, in the introduction they talk about a
reduction in aircraft carriers, carrier wings and A-6 aircraft in
total. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

The third reason is encroachment at NAS Whidbey


Outlying Field. What there has been, is a significant increase
in the frequency and intensity of complaints since 1987. As the
number of A-6 aircraft is reduced, the frequency of the
overflights would be reduced which one could anticipate would
result in the reduction in the number of complaints. Some of the
concerns of the residents near OLF Coupeville are real and are
valid. Solutions are available and may be resolved at a small
fraction of the cost of closing HAS Whidbey. This will be
discussed later.

The next reason given for the low grade in military


value was the previous studies to relocate the EA-6B squadrons to
nas Lemoore and eventually consolidating all West Coast attack
squadrons at NAS Lemoore. This is boot strap reasoning. First
they conduct a study to see if something is possible and then
cite the existence of the study as a basis for making the
decision. There is nothing to indicate the study has any merit,

CTO® skvqv 'X3S SKvav aocma Tesosnooz xvi to:os to/ts/^o


wf. ether it was conducted properly or whether the appropriate
crjtarl* vara lncludad in that study.

Tha next reason given is the reduction in A-6 aircraft,


tarliur they gave as a raason tha inability of future growth.
Mow thuy are claiming tha number of A-6 aircraft will ba reduced.
Again, they should not have it both ways.

Tha last raason given was the substantial reduction in


maritime patrol aircraft which were previously planned to back
rill tho A-6 mission reduction at NAS whidbey in conjunction
with construction and stand up of squadrons for the A-12
aircraft. The A-12 aircraft has been cancelled and no
replacement to the A-6 is on the horizon. Several years will be
required to even design a replacement to the A-6. it may be ten
years or more before any replacement aircraft is on line. The
basic premise for phasing out the A-6 and moving in the P-3 no
longer exists. Again, this is boot strap reasoning.

3. Financial Analysis. We need, to obtain the basis for


e financial analysis that was made to see if there is any
validity to the assumption that the cost of relocation will be
about $500 million and that the annual savings after
implementation is about $75 million. I am certain we can have an
interesting time reviewing those numbers. However, for now,
let's assume those numbers to be correct and examine the
absurdity of this plan.

Assume a cost of relocation of $500 million. At a


minimum, it will be five to six years before the relocation can
be completed. Facilities at Lemoore need to be designed. After
being designed, Congressional funding and appropriations are
required. After appropriation, construction is required both for
military facilities, housing, utilities, schools, etc. No
savings will be incurred during the construction phase. In all
probability there will he additional costs at Lemoore as well as
at NAS Whidbey.

However, in any event, the federal government has to


borrow monies to fund extra operations. To not include the cost
of borrowing these funds is bad accounting and an incomplete
analysis. At an annual interest rate of 8 percent for 2h years
between the time monies are being spent and the final
implementation of the move, the government will incur interest
costs in excess of $100 million. This will make the total cost
of relocation in excess of $600 million. All of that money will
have to be borrowed. Assuming about an 8 percent annual
interest rate, the interest will be $50 million a year.

Therefore, if the expected savings are $75 million a


year and the interest cost is $50 million a year, the net savings

no® SKVQV N3S «-«-«- skvqv Mooaa lesozmos XVJ co:os ion? ro
1* only $25 million a year. That savings will not start until
five or Mix yiMiru from now at the earliest. To amortize a ^.buu
million investment with a $23 million per year savings will
require an additional 24 years. At best, this would be a break
even proposition 30 y«<*r** from now,
Amajor question is whether" the Navy and/or* the
Department of Defense can predict future needs accurately for 30
years. If we look at their comments for the military
construction at NAS whidbey during the last five or ten years, it
looks like they can't predict accurately for more than six
months, if that long.

If this whole process is only going to result in a


savings of $25 million per year at best, could those savings be
better made elsewhere? What is the total budget for NAS Whidbey
including personnel, new construction, equipment, weapons, fuel,
utilities, maintenance, etc.? We know the payroll is $288
million per year, but that is only a portion of the total
expense. if it is $5oo million per year, a 5 percent reduction
would save the same $25 million. If we are anticipating a
moderate reduction in the number of a-6 aircraft, the natural
attrition should more than generate an equivalent savings. The
savings could then be made by maintaining military readiness at
nas whidbey; without the $600 million investment; and without
disruption to the local community and the military personnel
stationed at NAS Whidbey.

4. Community Impact - Currently.

In the early 1940s the government purchased some of the


finest farm land in the world to establish NAS whidbey. They
purchased both my maternal grandparents' farm and my paternal
grandparents* farm. They acquired some of the most beautiful and
scenic waterfront in the all of the Puget Sound area.
Essentially, this was all accomplished without serious objection
since it was being done by nour government" for the good of our
nation. in January 1942, the Austin Construction Company
starting construction on nas whidbey. My father worked for
Austin construction and worked on the construction of many base
facilities. NAS Whidbey was commissioned September 21, 1942.

Since 1942, the city of Oak Harbor has grown as needed


by the Navy. North Whidbey has provided housing, schools,
recreation facilities, retail stores, medical services, other
services, churches, emotional support and substantial friendship
to the military throughout their activities at NAS Whidbey.

During the last ten years, the Navy has encouraged


growth in the Oak Harbor area. Particularly, they have
encouraged bousing to accommodate the substantial growth of

£10® SNVdV N3S <-«-«- SKVaV MD0H8 T6802ff9U2 XYJ SQ:q2 HJ \Z tO


military u no **hidb«y. xhi* encouragement vat
CvV't iruipkj up to the v*r> *<*eA that the anrKHUveement vat sado.
•'5f’tlon*i IN bo*#* *vrt on the drawing board the veefc that
the cio*m» %a» juuKXii>o#vi.

Sioce I'JSO, NO NtvidN«y t\.t# sjyvnt $ orv imv


conatnidion.

Sine# i9#o, new construction valued at $ has


v\vurra! In the city of vNa* Harbor.

is*0, $_________ in new construction ha*


occurred on North Khidbey (vithin the OsiX. Harbor School
restrict).

Since 19# 0, Whidbey General Hospital ha# spent or


committed 5_____________ tor nev construvrtion.

since 19S0, the OaA harbor school District has spent


$________ t_____ or. tmscdel ing existing facilities and on new
cons t xuct i on.

To better serve both the civilian community and the


military personnel, an «vxtensive teas ot medical experts ha* been
created on whidbey island. without the military personnel this
tea- or medical experts cannot afford to remain on the Island.

The residents of North whidbey have made a substantial


long-term investment to serve the military personnel stationed at
NAS whidbey. we cannot abandon our investment liXe it did not
exist. You will notice that the analysis of the 1XND maXes
absolutely no mention of the value or the investment by the
taxpayers in HAS Whidbey that will be abandoned.

HAS Nhidbey has traditionally been one of the top


military stations sought as a duty station by military personnel.
The relationship between the military personnel and the civilian
community has always been a warm and close relationship.

Arbitrarily closing NAS whidbey and transferring the


oilitar*- personnel to Lemoore, California may have a serious
adverse impact on the morale of the personnel, upon retention and
upon future recruitment of these fine, highly qualified military
persons.

5. tuture community Impact.

The report rather abruptly states, "Closure will


precipitate the loss of over 11,700 direct and indirect
positions." This equals 58.3 percent of the employment in the
Island County area.
6

SKYtlY X3S SlYYtlY 5L>05M momtot \Yi io;os it it to


910 £
need t.o not only point out that at 58.3 percent loss
1ob« is substantial but the facts are misleading. Island
County is really four separate areas.

Cama.no Island is 3 0 miles distant and will have no


adverao impact as a result of the base closure.

South whidbey is 30 miles south and will have very


little, if any, impact as a result of the base closure.

Central Whidbey will have some impact as a result of


the base closure. Primarily, the hospital and medical
specialties would most likely suffer the more significant impact.

North whidbey would feel the remainder of the impact


which could be as high as 95 percent of the job losses.

The population of Oak Harbor is the


population within the Oak Harbor school District (North Whidbey)
is people. Removing from this environment 11,700
employees and their dependents will be devastating.

The Oak Harbor School District has _____________


children enrolled in the schools. Of those children ___________
percent are military dependents and an estimated ____________
percent are dependents of civilians working at the Naval Air
station. The loss of these children will be devastating to the
Oak Harbor School District. This doesn't even take into account
the children of those people who will lose their jobs indirectly
as a result of the base closure.

Without NAS Whidbey as an impetus to the residential


and commercial development on North Whidbey, it is highly likely
that North Whidbey would have developed in a fashion similar to
South Whidbey, Central Whidbey, Camano Island or the San Juan
Islands.

The population of South Whidbey (South Whidbey School


District) is ___________ *

The population of Central Whidbey (Coupeville School


District) is _________________ .

The population of Camano Island is__________________

The population of San Juan Island (Friday Harbor) is

The population of Lopez Island is

The population of North Whidbey is

7
If HAS whidbey is closed and the property is not
immediately BJidc available for othnr commercial activities, it
• ould not be unmanonable to expect that tile population of North
Whidbey would stabilize at a level similar to the surrounding
areas.

t>. The report states rather quicKly "The Navy will dispose
of land and facilities" after closing NAS VThidbey. The report
states the value to be §33 million.

Nothing is mentioned about the monies that have been


spent on new construction at NAS whidbey during the last five to
ten years. We need to determine the amount that has been spent
in the last five to ten years verses the total investment at NAS
Whidbey. This will show both that the facilities are by and
large new and that the taxpayers have invested a significant
amount of money based upon representations and assurances by the
Navy and the Department of Defense during the last five to ten
years. No consideration has been given to the cost of abandoning
those facilities.

A problem is inherent in the disposition and use of the


facilities. NAS whidbey is considered to be one of the, if not
the most, contaminated military installations in the State of
Washington. If the property is contaminated or potentially
contaminated, no sane buyer or user will purchase the property
until it has been certified as clean. Have the cost to date
considered the extra costs that will be incurred in trying to
rapidly determine the nature and extent of the contamination and
to rapidly solve the contamination problem?

We need to obtain copies of the reports dealing with


the contamination. We need to determine how long they have been
in the process of tying to determine the nature and extent of the
problem and how long they anticipate it would be before the
problem is entirely solved. I would be surprised if they can
have the area cleaned up within 20 years. In any event, there is
bound to be some significant delay in completing the
environmental assessments and the clean up.

That is only part of the problem. Once the property is


cleaned up, the permitting process to use the waterfront
facilities and wetland facilities by private enterprise will take
another several years.

At best, closure cannot occur in less than three to


five years. If there is any additional delay because of the
contamination, that needs to be added. Once the property is made
available for use, it could be at least another five years before
it could be used to generate replacement jobs. At best, we are

8
locking at a collapsed «conoay for ten years and In all
probability tot 20 yusrs.

wnat impact will this coiiapsod oconomy have on the


local property owners? We need to emphasize that many military
P*monro 1 have purchased homes in the oak Harbor area. We need
to try to d«t«raine the number of homes owned by military
personnel since they will be forced to leave their home and place
it on the market.

we can anticipate a very depressed market for many


years. Most or the homes in the subdivisions of OaX Harbor and
most of the apartments and condominiums have only one function
and that is to serve as a residence for an employee of some type,
ir we are short 11,500 jobs, we can anticipate 11,500 vacant
units. Why would anyone want to buy a unit at anything
approaching current market value if you had to compete with
11,500 vacant units when you came time to resell your home. The
commercial rental market would be destroyed.

We should try to calculate the economic loss to the


North whidbey area. One method of doing so would be to calculate
the total value of all improved real estate on North whidbey (in
the Oak Harbor school District) . I don't know if we need to
exclude vacant land or not. In either event, if we assume a 40
percent reduction in value because of the total collapse of the
market, we can calculate the net loss to the property owners in
North Whidbey. If we then assume that 75 percent of those
property owners will be required to sell because they either have
to leave the area because they are in the military or are forced
to leave the area because there is no employment, we can
determine the real losses to be expected.

There is some indication that the government will buy


houses from military personnel who are forced to leave the area.
I have not yet been able to confirm that. if it is the case,
that needs to be examined carefully.

First, if its is based on a percentage of value, when


is that value determined? Is it the value at the time of
purchase? If so, all appreciation will be lost. If it is based
upon the appraised value at the time the base is actually closed,
the market will have collapsed completely by then and it means
nothing. If it is based upon the market -value a week before the
announcement is made, the result will be reasonably fair to the
military personnel, of course, it would prevent any appreciation
during the next five or six years, but it would also give them
some assurance that their equity would not be destroyed. What we
need to look at carefully is whether or not the cost of
purchasing those homes; the cost of holding those homes and
maintaining and repairing them and ultimately destroying or
selling them has been included in their calculations in

9
• ^ c of the transition. ir tharo «:• 1,000 none*
• ’ •~ aT«r»<i« talvs of liuo.ooo aacfi, the cost is 5100 Billion to
*« 4 .«;• U> hia^a. Ttat doe* not address the coat or
r«; t«i; and x••ailing the*. Nor does It address the
r the local taxing author it l««n 1; thosa ftOEHia art taken
f f the tax rolls. What doas that do to the Income to the
county, to the city, to the hospital district and to the school
I'.atr'.ct a-d for tha paymant of bonds ll all of thosa properties
axe taken off tha tax rolls.

fli.ally, hhu question* to ba answered if the Navy base


j x >)x>xt; .9 aurpluscd ura a» follows:

Will it bo clean or will it bo contaminated?

Do »• hava any assurance that it will ba in fact usad


for a cocrtrcial baso for future employment?

What co-pat ition will there ba for tha property? Will


they be wot aside for parks and recreation; will other
governmental entitles take over the property with few employees;
will it be sold to the highest bidder potentially resulting in an
outside owner who nay have no plans for employment in the area?
Arn we offered any protection at all that it will be made
available to the local community for employment opportunities?

7. other Considerations.

T think we need to spend a little bit of time on the


political Issues that gave rise to this recommendation.

we need to determine precisely where in the chain of


recommendations NAS Whidbey got on the list. The recommendation
was supposed to have been made by the Navy's Base Structure
Committee. In talking with Admiral Dunleavy, it appears that
whidbey was not on the closure list when the recommendation left
op 5. It was added somewhere above him. We need to find out
exactly where it was added to the list and what information was
supplied along with the recommendation. It did not come through
normal channels. We may want to, if we can identify precisely
the nature of things, explain how the heavy attack squadron is
losing influence and how the light attack people are taking
control. We may also want to address the embarrassment
associated with the A-12 and its cancellation. Not so much to
point a finger but to explain how and why we got on the list when
there may be all of these good reasons why we should not be.

Secondly, I think we need to address the fact that


being on the list may be a knee jerk reaction to the complaints
from wise concerning the flights at OLF Coupeville.

10
1 »onally believe that many of the residents near
v U* Cuupevlll* have real anti valid complaints. That doesn't mean
that tho Navy ohould atop flying and using that airfield. It
do*n in hu-ever, that tho Navy should take some positive action
to try to minimi zu thn adverse impact on the local community.
A1 though recently tho local military personnel have been
*t.t ..apt ing to make nomo progress, there have been times when the
•ilitury handled these complaints in a confrontational fashion.
The use of the bumper sticker by some military that said, "See
the planus, hear the noise - get used to it," was not much help
in solving the problem.

An environmental impact study has been ordered


involving the overflight problem. Apparently, that was funded in
Kay of 1988 and the results have not yet been disclosed. We need
to get a.a many specifics as possible about the history of, input
into and results of the Environmental Impact Statement.

There are alternative solutions available, but the Navy


has at least appeared uninterested or unwilling in trying to
relieve the concern of the affected parties. If they have been
concerned, they have been very effective at concealing it. (This
does not apply to the local officials at NAS Whidbey. Recently,
we have had several individuals who have appeared genuinely
concerned and have been trying to accommodate the complaints as
beat they can. However, they do not appear to be given any
support from higher up.)

I want to cite my personal example. I built my home


about five years ago just north of NAS Whidbey directly under the
flight pattern. My home is used as a marker on which the
aircraft turn as they do their touch and goes, I doubt there is
any place on North Whidbey that has more noise than my home.
However, at the time of constructing my home, I implemented
various sound reduction features. At that time, I called NAS
Whidbey and asked what suggestions they had to help make my home
sound proof. They offered absolutely no help and apparently
spent zero effort in trying to be of assistance in that regard.
In any event, I implemented several techniques and many of them
work quite well and are relatively inexpensive to install.

I have two homes on the beach side by side. One was


built 20 years ago and has no sound reduction techniques in
place. My new home was built with sound reduction in mind. The
noise level inside the two homes is very different when the
aircraft are flying over, x have offered and requested everybody
at the base I could think of to come to my home when the aircraft
were flying and to take measurements inside both homes to
determine if my sound reduction techniques are in fact
successful. So far, nobody has been willing to come to my home
and take any measurements to see if I was successful in making
the living environment tolerable when the aircraft fly over. It

11
certainly has loft me with the impression that tho Navy Just
doesn't care.

I think wo should havo a report from Puqet Power as to


how tJmir Insulation proqram works and how auccannful it has
been. The Navy could adopt a similar typo of program for sound
reduction. if tho Navy would research and rocommond certain
construction techniques to retrofit a homo that would result in
some noise reduction, the local contractors could be trained in
those techniques. Once an approved list of contractors was
prepared, a program similar to Puget Power's could be implemented
that could be almost self operational. The next step would bo to
try a fuw homes to see if It works. If it does, the rest of the
homes that are affected by the overflights could bo identified an
potential candidates. All they would have to do is contact the
contractor, have the plans prepared for retrofitting their home
for Hound reduction, have the contractor do the necessary work
and share the cost between the individual and the U.S.
government. A few million dollajrH spent doing this would
carta inly be more cost effective than spending $600 million to
move to Lemoore. our government has a possible million to $10
million problem and they propose a $e>uu million solution.

We need to check into Oceana since I have been informed


that monies were spent there to help sound proof homes affected
by overflights. That may give us both proof that it can be done
and some idea how effective it is.

Lastly, the Navy should take an affirmative approach of


trying to find a suitable alternative outlying field. If the
future of NAS whidbey will require any significant U3e of OLF
Coupeville in the future, then acquiring or flying to a different
outlying field must be given serious consideration.

CONCLUSION.

It is my suggestion that the testimony at the hearing be


broken down into several categories.

1. Someone carry the ball.

2. Jim McKenzie and any other retired military persons


address the operational issues and the advantages of NAS Whidbey
over Lemoore.

3. Someone be prepared to address the requirements at


Lemoore. They should explain what is available and what is not
available.

4. Our Senators and Congressmen address the process in


D.C. They should point out as many prior comments as possible in

12
ncpport of NAS Wh ldix-Y. They should explain as accurately as
po«»lt1« the process whereby Whidbey got. on th« list.

b* w« Will need to have someone evaluate the cost savings


',r'!"'1 co*- of transition and point out the fallacies in
their accountLng.

A1 Foetje should testify concerning the past and


* “ atienship of North Whidbey and the Navy and alec what
impact closure would have on North Whidbey including the city.

7. Roger Woehi should testify concerning the impact on the


school district.

y. Bob Zylstra should testify concerning the impact on the


hospital and the medical team on Central Whidbey.

9. A County Commissioner should testify on the population


loss and real property value loss on North Whidbey if the Navy
closes.

10. Our Congressmen/Senators should address the issue of


future users of the property considering its contaminated
condition and others competing for title to the property* Both
Mayor Koetje and the County Commissioner could address the
permitting process to use any of that waterfront property*

11. Barney Beeksma could testify concerning the financial


impact on the community; the total reduction in value; the
transition back to any semblance of a reasonable economy.

12. If possible, it would be nice to have some young


officer testify as to why he joined the Navy, how he enjoys being
stationed at Whidbey, how his family enjoys living here, how he
will lose his life savings in his home if he is transferred to
Lemoore and how such a closure and transfer will adversely affect
morale, retention and future recruitment.

Respectfully submitted,

13